JPF Home Page Forums Musician Gear and Techniques General Technical Forum Radio Ready Recording

I hear the term "Radio Ready" often and must confess that I have no idea what it means. Is it a technical term or a way to describe quality of recording or both?
Can a recording be produced "Radio Ready" at home or is it something that only a professional studio and/or engineer can do?
For instance, I use Ableton Live software and the term is not mentioned in their 300+ page manual. I would really like to learn the process if my software is capable. Ben

It just means that the recording sounds so good it can just go right on the radio...no need for redo Ben

Thanks Herbie, I wasn't sure if it meant that the bit rate had to be a certain number or something more technical. It took long enough to learn how to use this software and I'm still learning. I should have posted this on the recording board. Ben

Hi Ben with your ref to bit rate etc I think you are more correct than Herbie. Maybe Mike.. (Sub or Dunbar) will clarify with a more technical explanation.

As far as I know, "radio ready" is just one of those industry buzzwords that means "it makes you wanna turn it up as you're driving to work" or "it grabs ya" or "the deejays will want to spin it all day long, all night strong".

It's like saying that girl over there is a "hottie".

It's a statement of biased opinion.

Doesn't refer to any technical specification.

So I guess that I should concentrate more on recording quality (good mikes etc.) and take advantage of the software features that I've got.
Big Jim, I've got 44100 sample rate, overall latency at 25ms and 16 bits depth, which I think is standard to produce a WAV recording which I can convert to MP3 when I need to. Thanks, Ben

At TAXI, they usually ask for BROADCAST QUALITY, by which they do mean it could be played as is on TV or Radio. Proper mastering, perfect mix and eq, etc. I always thought RADIO READY was the same thing.

Here is one definition of radio ready:

http://www.masteringcentral.com/?p=26

There are some good answers here already, thought I'd throw this in because I've always kinda thought that redbook and radio ready were synonymous...the term can be applied to any form of musical genius or noise(as Big Jim would affectionately call our Country music)...Ben sounds like you're redbooked...

The Red Book is the 1980 document that provides the specifications for the standard compact disc (CD) developed by Sony and Philips. According to legend, the document was in a binder with red covers, originating the tradition for subsequent adaptations of CD specifications to be referred to as variously colored books. The Red Book described the CD's physical specifications, such as the tracks, sector and block layout, coding, and sampling. Sony and Philips referred to the discs as CD-DA (digital audio), defined as a content medium for audio data digitized at 44,100 samples per second (44.1KHz) and in a range of 65,536 possible values (16 bits).
The CD Format
According to Red Book specifications, a standard CD is 120 mm (4.75 inches) in diameter and 1.2 mm (0.05 inches) thick and is composed of a polycarbonate plastic substrate (underlayer - this is the main body of the disc), one or more thin reflective metal (usually aluminum) layers, and a lacquer coating. CDs are divided into a lead-in area, which contains the table of contents (TOC), a program area, which contains the audio data, and a lead-out area, which contains no data. An audio CD can hold up to 74 minutes of recorded sound, and up to 99 separate tracks. Data on a CD-DA is organized into sectors (the smallest possible separately addressable block) of information. The audio information is stored in frames of 1/75 second length. 44,100 16-bit samples per second are stored, and there are two channels (left and right). This gives a sector size of 2,352 bytes per frame, which is the total size of a physical block on a CD.

CD data is not arranged in distinct physical units; data is organized into frames (consisting of 24 bytes of user data, plus synchronization, error correction, and control and display bits) which are intricately interleaved so that damage to the disc will not destroy any single frame, but only small parts of many frames.

The Red Book specifications form the basis for all later CD technologies.

Lyle, enjoyed the read on that...when I did my rock cd, just a little over a year ago we bought a 24 hour block of time just to mix and master the project, that's just mix and mastering time- there is a huge difference at the cohesiveness and punch the project takes on once this is done...it ended being 26 hours to get it done, we had recorded in 3 studios , so alot of the time was spent normalizing the sessions, removing all glitches, and then peaking the punch power, it is a rock record, if ya wanna hear any of it there are samples at my cdbaby and soundclick sites it's the Ready to Fly cd...Moker

Thanks Moker, It looks like I'm up to standard.
Mark brought up another question. What's the difference between broadcast quality and radio ready? Do they both just mean "easy on the ears" or are there tech minimums for "broadcast quality"?

That's what I wonder, Ben. Especially when it comes to loudness. In my digital infancy here, I always run into the problem of peaks...I mess with compression, but always end up with a mix that's too quiet. I do not understand limiters yet...

I do believe that radio ready and broadcast quality are the same now, although broadcast quality used to apply mainly to video.

Man I've got Soooooo much to learn....

Hey, Moke, I'm not surprised about how long that took. Mastering would be the most maddening part...lots of tweaking and even more second-guessing.

Ben, it is my understanding also that a properly mastered recording is both radio ready and of broadcast quality...as with any recording sh*t in, sh*t out so all they are talking about here are levels, you're levels must meet a normalized output level and the peak output of the entire recording generally dictates where the rest must adjust to, too high of a peak needs compression, too low of a peak needs EQ to boost it, there is where the trained engineer is well worth the money, I myself can f*ck up a set of great tracks and turn it into a furball of a mix, done it several hundred times...ha...when it counts, I hire a pro...worktapes it just isn't of much importance, the only place they are going is your inner circle...
Lyle, the mastering phase was made easier by all the mixing, and the engineer I used was the same guy, I think he set himself up as he went so the mastering would be easier...the one thing I walked away with is how a trained set of ears is so invaluable, the pro who has mastered hundreds or more projects knows,hears,does things that I will probably never learn and be able to do...of course he's not a great songwriter like us...ha...he is a great bass player though...I was there every hour that time, my second cd I dropped off and said do your thing, but it was a different scenario I took him a two track and had him normalize, compress, and EQ the overall project which is in effect what they call a quick master, the studios had already done all the mixing on that one...it , like my 3rd one will be, is mostly used for shopping my country market songs...I'm about half way on that third one, hopefully pull it together this summer...great discussion guys, thanks...Moker

Thanks Moker saved me the trouble. The first time I booke a studio I asked for acouple of hours. "What do you want to do?" asked the engineer. I said record a couple of songs. He laughed. Several hours later we had not even recorded the first one never mind mastering.

Ben as you say you are almost up to speed with the hardware and software side. But remember what Moker said doodoo in doodoo out.
You have to concentrate on how to capture the sound accurately and then know what to do with it once that is done. Good luck.
That is the main reason why even the most experienced artists spend may hours in the studio with pro engineers recording and mastering and why these guys with phones superglued to their ears are worth their weight in gold.

Yeah Big Jim, my main concern was if I had the means, the rest is up to me. Thanks, Ben

there are exceptional mastering houses who charge approximately $15 per recorded minute to master your song, not mix , master
here's a link to a guy well respected Rodney Mills, check out his client list...I have not used him but I have heard some of his work , and he is excellent...

http://www.rodneymills.com/faq/index.html

Ben,

Moker's right. These days, "Radio Ready" refers more to the redbook standards.

Lately I've been doing "retro" mixes and mastering. My ears have gotten completely tired of the "hot all the time" masters that the industry has been cranking out. One of the things I love about music is the dynamic quality. I love songs that start softly and build to a peak. I love snare drums that aren't slammed to the zero on every hit. Funny thing is, I've been fighting an uphill battle with this, and have gotten crits on other music boards compared with "hot all the time" mixes. Look on this forum for the thread about dynamics or volume (can't remember the subject name, and I've got to run for a session or I'd search it for you)

Now, a mix with variable dynamics can still fit the redbook standards and still be "radio ready." Heck, some of the biggest hits of all time had variable loudness. When I do this, I try to keep the "floor," the lowest volume, still easily heard. Depending on the tracks, it's usually over -10 db, but different frequencies have different "perceived loudness."

I encourage people (literally, have courage) to use dynamics in their recordings. Like vocal tuning, I believe slammed to the wall dynamics will be looked on as "dated" by future generations. I think the vocal where long notes sound like a keyboard sampler, and the dynamics that are all slammed to the wall will make folks say, "Listen to that dinosaur music."

Thanks Moker, so we're talking about $45-$50 per average length song. But to be honest, I'm trying to learn as much as I can on my own because it will be more beneficial in the long run and it's fun. I'm in no position to pay someone else right now anyway though I know that they could do a much better job. On the other hand my songs are fairly simple, basically a vocal, two acoustic guitars and a bass.

Thanks for the info Mike. Like I said above my songs aren't that complicated and I think that I have a pretty good handle on the mixing. I'm new to compression and EQ and variable dynamics as you mentioned above is something else that I need to grasp. I have a song on the MP3 board right now called "Wolves" that I have been experimenting with. I just added compression to it and the sound quality has improved very much from the original version. Give it a listen if you have a chance. I'm going to go through all of my old songs and remaster them eventually. Some are of such poor quality from bad equipment and lack of knowledge that I have to completely do them over. Ben

I always think of one piece of advice I've been given...

"If you think a professional/expert is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur."

...as long as no one believes that simply having your music in red book format means that it's "radio ready". That is definitely not the case.

You could record 10 3-minute tracks of your cat shrieking to your out-of-tune Stella guitar onto a 16-bit 44.1Khz CD and it would meet "Redbook" standards, but it sure wouldn't be "radio-ready".

From another angle, you could use $4000 microphones and $6000 mic preamps to record the London Philharmonic orchestra performing Stravinsky onto a voice-activated microcassette, burn it to a CD, and it wouldn't be radio-ready either.

Redbook is simply the technical and physical specifications of how audio is to be stored and retrieved on CDs. "Radio-ready" and "Broadcast quality" are terms referring to how good it sounds in a competitive situation with other similar material. If you played your recording next to another one playing on the radio, would anyone be able to tell whether yours was done outside a pro studio? That's all they mean.

Ben, as far as I'm aware, the current accepted minimum standard for master tracks is 96k, 24 bit, although a lot of folks go up to 192k. Whether it's necessary I couldn't say, but as I understand it, it allows plenty of headroom for digital processors to do their work.

cheers, niteshift

I have uploaded on sites that only allow 192k.
With some of my uploads I have noticed that a 128k adds more thwack to more of a rockin' song while a 192 seems to offer more candecence to ballads and heavy keyboard. It reminds me of the differences between a normal and hi-fi cassette.
I'm more out just to get the point across in my recordings, but a higher bit stream does seem to matter when more is put in the sound.
I also noticed that the synth bass in my earlier internet recordings rattle the speakers more when above a 128k.
I like making arrangements around the synth bass a lot or the bottom strings of my electric or acoustic to substitute the bass sound.

Technical note:

Recording digital audio at a sampling rate of 192 kilohertz...

Versus making a MP3 at 192 kilobits per second...

Two different animals entirely.

Yes, quite right Patrick, thats a WAV file at 96 or 192 k, 24 bit, not an mp3.

cheers, niteshift

Because of the discussion above about mp3 bit rates (128K, etc) vs PCM sampling rates (44.1K, 48K, 96K, 192K) I'm not sure if this is now clear or not:

Masters are prepared and presented at 24-bit, 44.1K and 48K all the time: 44.1k for CDs; 48K for video. 96K is not a minimum standard for either. This is PCM audio, not mp3.

If you are planning Blu-Ray or some other hi-def format like DVD-Audio, then 96K becomes more important, but still not a requirement.

96K is sometimes used on original tracking sessions done by major labels or audiophiles for recording acoustic instruments since there is some evidence that the difference between 44.1K and 96K (or even 88.2K) is audible mainly when recording acoustic instruments.

I haven't recorded at 192K (PCM, not mp3) myself, but have read many articles by people who have tried it. Not a single person was able to hear any difference between the 192k and the 96k recording. I haven't heard anyone recommending it. The only times I've heard of it being used at all are when recording symphonic ensembles where the ambience might gain a bit of detail with that high of a sampling rate.

Mastering facilities will readily accept virtually all sample rates from 44.1 to 192K.

Of course, all that fidelity is lost when you convert it to an mp3 file of just about any bandwidth (128, 160, 192, etc).

Here is a link to an article on preparing your music for mastering:

http://www.discmakers.com/products/preparingyourorder/mastering.asp

Although Discmakers prefers to receive audio CDs at 44.1K/16-bit, I know that most mastering facilities prefer 44.1K/24-bit wav or aif files.